Supreme Court Decisions/Judgements Directory

Judges: J S Verma And S P Bharucha, Jj Act Terrorist And Disruptive Activities Prevention Act, 1987 Sections 5, 12 Offence Under Section 25 Of The Arms Act Conviction Under Section 12 Of The T D A Act By Designated Court Legality Sentence Modification Of Arms Act 1959 Section 25 1 B A Offence Under Conviction By Designated Court U S 12 Of The T D A Act Legality Of Sentence Modification Of Interpretation Of Statutes Terrorist And Disruptive Activities Prevention Act, 1987 Section 5 Arms And Ammunition Construction Headnote On 7 4 1988, The Police Apprehended The Appellant On The G T Road On Suspicion, And He Was Found Carrying A 12 Bore Country Made Pistol Without Licence Or Permit The District Magistrate Issued Sanction For Prosecuting The Appellant For An Offence Under Section 25 Of The Arms Act, 1959 The Judicial Magistrate, First Class Ordered That As The Case Should Be Tried By The Designated Court Under Section 5 Of The Terrorist And Distruptive Activities Prevention Act, 1987 The Case Was Transferred To The Additional Judge, The Designated Court, For Trial, Charging The Appellant For The Offence Punishable Under Section 5 Of The T D A Act, 1987 The Appellant Pleaded Not Guilty The Designated Judge Found That The Prosecution Had Brought Home The Offence To The Appellant Beyond Reasonable Doubt And The Appellant Was Convicted Of An Offence Punishable Under Section 5 Of The T D A Act And Sentenced To Undergo Rigorous Imprisonment For Five Years And To Pay A Fine Of Rs 200 Or, In Default, To Undergo Rigorous Imprisonment For A Further Period Of Three Months Against The Judgment And Order Of The Designated Court, The Present Appeal Was Filed The Appellant Contended That The Prosecution Itself Did Not Consider The Case Against Him To Be A Fit Case To Frame A Charge And Proceed Under The T A D A Act, 1987 And That It Was, Therefore, Not Proper To Try And Convict Thereunder That A Country Made Pistol Fell Outside The Ambit Of The Category Iii A, Of Schedule I To The Arms Rules, 1962 That Section 5 Of The T A D A Act, 1987 Applied Only When A Person Was In Possession Arms And Ammunition And That The Provisions Of Section 5 Of The T A D A Act Did Not Apply To The Appellant The Respondent State Submitted That The Prosecution Ha

20 October, 1992·PETITIONER:K.T.M.S. MOHD. AND ANR.Vs. RESPONDENT:UNION OF INDIA DATE OF JUDGMENT28/04/1992 BENCH:PANDIAN, S.R. (J) BENCH:PANDIAN, S.R. (J) FATHIMA BEEVI, M. (J) CITATION:1992 AIR 1831 1992 SCR (2) 879 1992 SCC (3) 178 JT 1992 (3) 129 1992 SCALE (1)1006 ACT:Indian Penal Code, 1860 :S. 193-per...

Judges: J S Verma And S P Bharucha, Jj Act Terrorist And Disruptive Activities Prevention Act, 1987 Sections 5, 12 Offence Under Section 25 Of The Arms Act Conviction Under Section 12 Of The T D A Act By Designated Court Legality Sentence Modification Of Arms Act 1959 Section 25 1 B A Offence Under Conviction By Designated Court U S 12 Of The T D A Act Legality Of Sentence Modification Of Interpretation Of Statutes Terrorist And Disruptive Activities Prevention Act, 1987 Section 5 Arms And Ammunition Construction Headnote On 7 4 1988, The Police Apprehended The Appellant On The G T Road On Suspicion, And He Was Found Carrying A 12 Bore Country Made Pistol Without Licence Or Permit The District Magistrate Issued Sanction For Prosecuting The Appellant For An Offence Under Section 25 Of The Arms Act, 1959 The Judicial Magistrate, First Class Ordered That As The Case Should Be Tried By The Designated Court Under Section 5 Of The Terrorist And Distruptive Activities Prevention Act, 1987 The Case Was Transferred To The Additional Judge, The Designated Court, For Trial, Charging The Appellant For The Offence Punishable Under Section 5 Of The T D A Act, 1987 The Appellant Pleaded Not Guilty The Designated Judge Found That The Prosecution Had Brought Home The Offence To The Appellant Beyond Reasonable Doubt And The Appellant Was Convicted Of An Offence Punishable Under Section 5 Of The T D A Act And Sentenced To Undergo Rigorous Imprisonment For Five Years And To Pay A Fine Of Rs 200 Or, In Default, To Undergo Rigorous Imprisonment For A Further Period Of Three Months Against The Judgment And Order Of The Designated Court, The Present Appeal Was Filed The Appellant Contended That The Prosecution Itself Did Not Consider The Case Against Him To Be A Fit Case To Frame A Charge And Proceed Under The T A D A Act, 1987 And That It Was, Therefore, Not Proper To Try And Convict Thereunder That A Country Made Pistol Fell Outside The Ambit Of The Category Iii A, Of Schedule I To The Arms Rules, 1962 That Section 5 Of The T A D A Act, 1987 Applied Only When A Person Was In Possession Arms And Ammunition And That The Provisions Of Section 5 Of The T A D A Act Did Not Apply To The Appellant The Respondent State Submitted That The Prosecution Ha

20 October, 1992·PETITIONER:GANESHLAL Vs. RESPONDENT:STATE OF MAHARASHTRA DATE OF JUDGMENT10/04/1992 BENCH:RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH:RAMASWAMY, K. KASLIWAL, N.M. (J) CITATION:1992 SCR (2) 502 1992 SCC (3) 106 JT 1992 (2) 592 1992 SCALE (1)811 ACT:Indian Penal Code, 1860:Sections 34, 201, 203 and 302-Delhi of wife d...

Judges: J S Verma And S P Bharucha, Jj Act Terrorist And Disruptive Activities Prevention Act, 1987 Sections 5, 12 Offence Under Section 25 Of The Arms Act Conviction Under Section 12 Of The T D A Act By Designated Court Legality Sentence Modification Of Arms Act 1959 Section 25 1 B A Offence Under Conviction By Designated Court U S 12 Of The T D A Act Legality Of Sentence Modification Of Interpretation Of Statutes Terrorist And Disruptive Activities Prevention Act, 1987 Section 5 Arms And Ammunition Construction Headnote On 7 4 1988, The Police Apprehended The Appellant On The G T Road On Suspicion, And He Was Found Carrying A 12 Bore Country Made Pistol Without Licence Or Permit The District Magistrate Issued Sanction For Prosecuting The Appellant For An Offence Under Section 25 Of The Arms Act, 1959 The Judicial Magistrate, First Class Ordered That As The Case Should Be Tried By The Designated Court Under Section 5 Of The Terrorist And Distruptive Activities Prevention Act, 1987 The Case Was Transferred To The Additional Judge, The Designated Court, For Trial, Charging The Appellant For The Offence Punishable Under Section 5 Of The T D A Act, 1987 The Appellant Pleaded Not Guilty The Designated Judge Found That The Prosecution Had Brought Home The Offence To The Appellant Beyond Reasonable Doubt And The Appellant Was Convicted Of An Offence Punishable Under Section 5 Of The T D A Act And Sentenced To Undergo Rigorous Imprisonment For Five Years And To Pay A Fine Of Rs 200 Or, In Default, To Undergo Rigorous Imprisonment For A Further Period Of Three Months Against The Judgment And Order Of The Designated Court, The Present Appeal Was Filed The Appellant Contended That The Prosecution Itself Did Not Consider The Case Against Him To Be A Fit Case To Frame A Charge And Proceed Under The T A D A Act, 1987 And That It Was, Therefore, Not Proper To Try And Convict Thereunder That A Country Made Pistol Fell Outside The Ambit Of The Category Iii A, Of Schedule I To The Arms Rules, 1962 That Section 5 Of The T A D A Act, 1987 Applied Only When A Person Was In Possession Arms And Ammunition And That The Provisions Of Section 5 Of The T A D A Act Did Not Apply To The Appellant The Respondent State Submitted That The Prosecution Ha

20 October, 1992·PETITIONER:STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. ETC. ETC.Vs. RESPONDENT:KISHAN SINGH ETC. ETC. DATE OF JUDGMENT06/08/1992 BENCH:KULDIP SINGH (J) BENCH:KULDIP SINGH (J) RAMASWAMY, K.CITATION:1992 AIR 1946 1992 SCR (3) 748 1992 SCC (3) 696 JT 1992 (4) 413 1992 SCALE (2)132 ACT:Rajasthan Colonisation A...

Judges: S Ranganathan And B P Jeevan Reddy, Jj Act Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1956 Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, 1959 Sections 2 H And J Sections 2 P, G And 3 1 Rule 6 Sales Tax Assessment Of Taxable Turn Over Computation Of Freight Charges, Packing Charges And Excise Duty On Packing Materials Whether Includible In Sale Price For Purpose Of Both Central Sales Tax And Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Headnote The Appellants Assessees In The First Set Of Appeals Were Selling Agents Of Appellants In The Second Set Of Appeals For The Assessment Year 1996 70, They Were Assessed To Sales Tax On Taxable Turn Over Of Rs 2, 37, 66, 245 Which Included An Amount Of Rs 29, 71, 527 Representing Freight Charges The Assessee Claimed Exclusion Of Freight Charges In Computing The Taxable Turnover On The Ground That Freight Had Been Independently Charged In The Invoices This Was Rejected By The Assessing Authority, The Appellate Authority As Well As Tribunal Aggrieved, The Assessee Preferred Revisions To The High Court The High Court Held That In Cases Arising Under The Central Sales Tax Act, The Freight, Packing Charges And Excise Duty On Packing Materials Had To Be Included In The Sale Price For The Computation Of Sales Tax, That In Cases Arising Under The Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act And Tamil Nadu Additional Sales Tax Act, Freight, Packing Charges And Excise Duty On Packing Materials Were Not Liable To Be Included In The Sale Price For The Computation Of The Sale Price, And That The Assessees Were Not Liable To Pay Additional Sales Tax On Freight, Packing Materials And Excise Duty On Packing Materials In The Cases Arising Under The Tamil Nadu Additional Sales Tax Act Aggrieved, Both The As Well As Well As The State Government Filed Appeals Before This Court On Behalf Of The State It Was Contended That The High Court, Having Held That The Amounts In Question Were Liable To The Included In The Turnover For Purposes Of Central Sales Tax Act, Ought To Have Also Held That These Amounts Were Liable To Be Included In The Taxable Turnover For Purposes Of Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act And The Tamil Nadu Additional Sales Tax Act Also, And Relief Granted For Purposes Of The Local Sales Tax Was Erroneous On Behalf Of The Assessees, It Was Contended That, Even For The Purpose Of C S T, The Freight Charges, The Cost Of Packing Materials And The Excise Duty On The Packing Materials Should Have Been Excluded In The Computation O

20 October, 1992·PETITIONER:ABHAY SHRIDHAR AMBULKAR Vs. RESPONDENT:S.V. BHAVE, COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT17/12/1990 BENCH:SHETTY, K.J. (J) BENCH:SHETTY, K.J. (J) AHMADI, A.M. (J) CITATION:1991 AIR 397 1990 SCR Supl. (3) 552 1991 SCC (1) 500 JT 1990 (4) 759 1990 SCALE (2)1274 ACT:Preven...

Judges: S Ranganathan And B P Jeevan Reddy, Jj Act Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1956 Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, 1959 Sections 2 H And J Sections 2 P, G And 3 1 Rule 6 Sales Tax Assessment Of Taxable Turn Over Computation Of Freight Charges, Packing Charges And Excise Duty On Packing Materials Whether Includible In Sale Price For Purpose Of Both Central Sales Tax And Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Headnote The Appellants Assessees In The First Set Of Appeals Were Selling Agents Of Appellants In The Second Set Of Appeals For The Assessment Year 1996 70, They Were Assessed To Sales Tax On Taxable Turn Over Of Rs 2, 37, 66, 245 Which Included An Amount Of Rs 29, 71, 527 Representing Freight Charges The Assessee Claimed Exclusion Of Freight Charges In Computing The Taxable Turnover On The Ground That Freight Had Been Independently Charged In The Invoices This Was Rejected By The Assessing Authority, The Appellate Authority As Well As Tribunal Aggrieved, The Assessee Preferred Revisions To The High Court The High Court Held That In Cases Arising Under The Central Sales Tax Act, The Freight, Packing Charges And Excise Duty On Packing Materials Had To Be Included In The Sale Price For The Computation Of Sales Tax, That In Cases Arising Under The Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act And Tamil Nadu Additional Sales Tax Act, Freight, Packing Charges And Excise Duty On Packing Materials Were Not Liable To Be Included In The Sale Price For The Computation Of The Sale Price, And That The Assessees Were Not Liable To Pay Additional Sales Tax On Freight, Packing Materials And Excise Duty On Packing Materials In The Cases Arising Under The Tamil Nadu Additional Sales Tax Act Aggrieved, Both The As Well As Well As The State Government Filed Appeals Before This Court On Behalf Of The State It Was Contended That The High Court, Having Held That The Amounts In Question Were Liable To The Included In The Turnover For Purposes Of Central Sales Tax Act, Ought To Have Also Held That These Amounts Were Liable To Be Included In The Taxable Turnover For Purposes Of Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act And The Tamil Nadu Additional Sales Tax Act Also, And Relief Granted For Purposes Of The Local Sales Tax Was Erroneous On Behalf Of The Assessees, It Was Contended That, Even For The Purpose Of C S T, The Freight Charges, The Cost Of Packing Materials And The Excise Duty On The Packing Materials Should Have Been Excluded In The Computation O

20 October, 1992·PETITIONER:DR. (MRS.) KIRTI DESHMANKAR Vs. RESPONDENT:UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT06/09/1990 BENCH:SHARMA, L.M. (J) BENCH:SHARMA, L.M. (J) KANIA, M.H.CITATION:1990 SCR Supl. (1) 355 1991 SCC (1) 104 JT 1991 (5) 291 1990 SCALE (2)471 ACT:Professional Colleges--Admission of: Medi...

Judges: S Ranganathan And B P Jeevan Reddy, Jj Act Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1956 Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, 1959 Sections 2 H And J Sections 2 P, G And 3 1 Rule 6 Sales Tax Assessment Of Taxable Turn Over Computation Of Freight Charges, Packing Charges And Excise Duty On Packing Materials Whether Includible In Sale Price For Purpose Of Both Central Sales Tax And Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Headnote The Appellants Assessees In The First Set Of Appeals Were Selling Agents Of Appellants In The Second Set Of Appeals For The Assessment Year 1996 70, They Were Assessed To Sales Tax On Taxable Turn Over Of Rs 2, 37, 66, 245 Which Included An Amount Of Rs 29, 71, 527 Representing Freight Charges The Assessee Claimed Exclusion Of Freight Charges In Computing The Taxable Turnover On The Ground That Freight Had Been Independently Charged In The Invoices This Was Rejected By The Assessing Authority, The Appellate Authority As Well As Tribunal Aggrieved, The Assessee Preferred Revisions To The High Court The High Court Held That In Cases Arising Under The Central Sales Tax Act, The Freight, Packing Charges And Excise Duty On Packing Materials Had To Be Included In The Sale Price For The Computation Of Sales Tax, That In Cases Arising Under The Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act And Tamil Nadu Additional Sales Tax Act, Freight, Packing Charges And Excise Duty On Packing Materials Were Not Liable To Be Included In The Sale Price For The Computation Of The Sale Price, And That The Assessees Were Not Liable To Pay Additional Sales Tax On Freight, Packing Materials And Excise Duty On Packing Materials In The Cases Arising Under The Tamil Nadu Additional Sales Tax Act Aggrieved, Both The As Well As Well As The State Government Filed Appeals Before This Court On Behalf Of The State It Was Contended That The High Court, Having Held That The Amounts In Question Were Liable To The Included In The Turnover For Purposes Of Central Sales Tax Act, Ought To Have Also Held That These Amounts Were Liable To Be Included In The Taxable Turnover For Purposes Of Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act And The Tamil Nadu Additional Sales Tax Act Also, And Relief Granted For Purposes Of The Local Sales Tax Was Erroneous On Behalf Of The Assessees, It Was Contended That, Even For The Purpose Of C S T, The Freight Charges, The Cost Of Packing Materials And The Excise Duty On The Packing Materials Should Have Been Excluded In The Computation O

20 October, 1992·PETITIONER:G.B. MAHAJAN AND ORS.Vs. RESPONDENT:JALGAON MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT13/09/1990 BENCH:VENKATACHALLIAH, M.N. (J) BENCH:VENKATACHALLIAH, M.N. (J) OJHA, N.D. (J) CITATION:1991 AIR 1153 1990 SCR Supl. (3) 20 1991 SCC (3) 91 1991 SCALE (1)378 ACT:Constitution of India...

Judges: S Ranganathan And B P Jeevan Reddy, Jj Act Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1956 Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, 1959 Sections 2 H And J Sections 2 P, G And 3 1 Rule 6 Sales Tax Assessment Of Taxable Turn Over Computation Of Freight Charges, Packing Charges And Excise Duty On Packing Materials Whether Includible In Sale Price For Purpose Of Both Central Sales Tax And Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Headnote The Appellants Assessees In The First Set Of Appeals Were Selling Agents Of Appellants In The Second Set Of Appeals For The Assessment Year 1996 70, They Were Assessed To Sales Tax On Taxable Turn Over Of Rs 2, 37, 66, 245 Which Included An Amount Of Rs 29, 71, 527 Representing Freight Charges The Assessee Claimed Exclusion Of Freight Charges In Computing The Taxable Turnover On The Ground That Freight Had Been Independently Charged In The Invoices This Was Rejected By The Assessing Authority, The Appellate Authority As Well As Tribunal Aggrieved, The Assessee Preferred Revisions To The High Court The High Court Held That In Cases Arising Under The Central Sales Tax Act, The Freight, Packing Charges And Excise Duty On Packing Materials Had To Be Included In The Sale Price For The Computation Of Sales Tax, That In Cases Arising Under The Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act And Tamil Nadu Additional Sales Tax Act, Freight, Packing Charges And Excise Duty On Packing Materials Were Not Liable To Be Included In The Sale Price For The Computation Of The Sale Price, And That The Assessees Were Not Liable To Pay Additional Sales Tax On Freight, Packing Materials And Excise Duty On Packing Materials In The Cases Arising Under The Tamil Nadu Additional Sales Tax Act Aggrieved, Both The As Well As Well As The State Government Filed Appeals Before This Court On Behalf Of The State It Was Contended That The High Court, Having Held That The Amounts In Question Were Liable To The Included In The Turnover For Purposes Of Central Sales Tax Act, Ought To Have Also Held That These Amounts Were Liable To Be Included In The Taxable Turnover For Purposes Of Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act And The Tamil Nadu Additional Sales Tax Act Also, And Relief Granted For Purposes Of The Local Sales Tax Was Erroneous On Behalf Of The Assessees, It Was Contended That, Even For The Purpose Of C S T, The Freight Charges, The Cost Of Packing Materials And The Excise Duty On The Packing Materials Should Have Been Excluded In The Computation O

20 October, 1992·PETITIONER:RAM EKBAL SHARMA Vs. RESPONDENT:STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.DATE OF JUDGMENT24/04/1990 BENCH:RAY, B.C. (J) BENCH:RAY, B.C. (J) REDDY, K. JAYACHANDRA (J) CITATION:1990 AIR 1368 1990 SCR (2) 679 1990 SCC (3) 504 1990 SCALE (1)12 ACT:Bihar Service Code, 1979: Section 74(b)(ii)--Order of comp...

Judges: S Ranganathan And B P Jeevan Reddy, Jj Act Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1956 Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, 1959 Sections 2 H And J Sections 2 P, G And 3 1 Rule 6 Sales Tax Assessment Of Taxable Turn Over Computation Of Freight Charges, Packing Charges And Excise Duty On Packing Materials Whether Includible In Sale Price For Purpose Of Both Central Sales Tax And Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Headnote The Appellants Assessees In The First Set Of Appeals Were Selling Agents Of Appellants In The Second Set Of Appeals For The Assessment Year 1996 70, They Were Assessed To Sales Tax On Taxable Turn Over Of Rs 2, 37, 66, 245 Which Included An Amount Of Rs 29, 71, 527 Representing Freight Charges The Assessee Claimed Exclusion Of Freight Charges In Computing The Taxable Turnover On The Ground That Freight Had Been Independently Charged In The Invoices This Was Rejected By The Assessing Authority, The Appellate Authority As Well As Tribunal Aggrieved, The Assessee Preferred Revisions To The High Court The High Court Held That In Cases Arising Under The Central Sales Tax Act, The Freight, Packing Charges And Excise Duty On Packing Materials Had To Be Included In The Sale Price For The Computation Of Sales Tax, That In Cases Arising Under The Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act And Tamil Nadu Additional Sales Tax Act, Freight, Packing Charges And Excise Duty On Packing Materials Were Not Liable To Be Included In The Sale Price For The Computation Of The Sale Price, And That The Assessees Were Not Liable To Pay Additional Sales Tax On Freight, Packing Materials And Excise Duty On Packing Materials In The Cases Arising Under The Tamil Nadu Additional Sales Tax Act Aggrieved, Both The As Well As Well As The State Government Filed Appeals Before This Court On Behalf Of The State It Was Contended That The High Court, Having Held That The Amounts In Question Were Liable To The Included In The Turnover For Purposes Of Central Sales Tax Act, Ought To Have Also Held That These Amounts Were Liable To Be Included In The Taxable Turnover For Purposes Of Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act And The Tamil Nadu Additional Sales Tax Act Also, And Relief Granted For Purposes Of The Local Sales Tax Was Erroneous On Behalf Of The Assessees, It Was Contended That, Even For The Purpose Of C S T, The Freight Charges, The Cost Of Packing Materials And The Excise Duty On The Packing Materials Should Have Been Excluded In The Computation O

20 October, 1992·PETITIONER:U.P. JUNIOR DOCTORS’ ACTION COMMITTEE Vs. RESPONDENT:DR. B. SHEETAL NANDWANI AND ORS DATE OF JUDGMENT31/08/1990 BENCH:MISRA RANGNATH BENCH:MISRA RANGNATH KULDIP SINGH (J) CITATION:1991 AIR 909 1990 SCR Supl. (1) 130 1990 SCC (4) 633 JT 1990 (3) 690 1990 SCALE (2)462 ACT:Medical C...

Judges: S Ranganathan And B P Jeevan Reddy, Jj Act Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1956 Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, 1959 Sections 2 H And J Sections 2 P, G And 3 1 Rule 6 Sales Tax Assessment Of Taxable Turn Over Computation Of Freight Charges, Packing Charges And Excise Duty On Packing Materials Whether Includible In Sale Price For Purpose Of Both Central Sales Tax And Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Headnote The Appellants Assessees In The First Set Of Appeals Were Selling Agents Of Appellants In The Second Set Of Appeals For The Assessment Year 1996 70, They Were Assessed To Sales Tax On Taxable Turn Over Of Rs 2, 37, 66, 245 Which Included An Amount Of Rs 29, 71, 527 Representing Freight Charges The Assessee Claimed Exclusion Of Freight Charges In Computing The Taxable Turnover On The Ground That Freight Had Been Independently Charged In The Invoices This Was Rejected By The Assessing Authority, The Appellate Authority As Well As Tribunal Aggrieved, The Assessee Preferred Revisions To The High Court The High Court Held That In Cases Arising Under The Central Sales Tax Act, The Freight, Packing Charges And Excise Duty On Packing Materials Had To Be Included In The Sale Price For The Computation Of Sales Tax, That In Cases Arising Under The Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act And Tamil Nadu Additional Sales Tax Act, Freight, Packing Charges And Excise Duty On Packing Materials Were Not Liable To Be Included In The Sale Price For The Computation Of The Sale Price, And That The Assessees Were Not Liable To Pay Additional Sales Tax On Freight, Packing Materials And Excise Duty On Packing Materials In The Cases Arising Under The Tamil Nadu Additional Sales Tax Act Aggrieved, Both The As Well As Well As The State Government Filed Appeals Before This Court On Behalf Of The State It Was Contended That The High Court, Having Held That The Amounts In Question Were Liable To The Included In The Turnover For Purposes Of Central Sales Tax Act, Ought To Have Also Held That These Amounts Were Liable To Be Included In The Taxable Turnover For Purposes Of Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act And The Tamil Nadu Additional Sales Tax Act Also, And Relief Granted For Purposes Of The Local Sales Tax Was Erroneous On Behalf Of The Assessees, It Was Contended That, Even For The Purpose Of C S T, The Freight Charges, The Cost Of Packing Materials And The Excise Duty On The Packing Materials Should Have Been Excluded In The Computation O

20 October, 1992·PETITIONER:STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.Vs. RESPONDENT:CH. BHAJAN LAL AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT21/11/1990 BENCH:PANDIAN, S.R. (J) BENCH:PANDIAN, S.R. (J) REDDY, K. JAYACHANDRA (J) CITATION:1992 AIR 604 1990 SCR Supl. (3) 259 1992 SCC Supl. (1) 335 JT 1990 (4) 650 1990 SCALE (2)1066 ACT:Constitutio...

Judges: S Ranganathan And B P Jeevan Reddy, Jj Act Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1956 Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, 1959 Sections 2 H And J Sections 2 P, G And 3 1 Rule 6 Sales Tax Assessment Of Taxable Turn Over Computation Of Freight Charges, Packing Charges And Excise Duty On Packing Materials Whether Includible In Sale Price For Purpose Of Both Central Sales Tax And Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Headnote The Appellants Assessees In The First Set Of Appeals Were Selling Agents Of Appellants In The Second Set Of Appeals For The Assessment Year 1996 70, They Were Assessed To Sales Tax On Taxable Turn Over Of Rs 2, 37, 66, 245 Which Included An Amount Of Rs 29, 71, 527 Representing Freight Charges The Assessee Claimed Exclusion Of Freight Charges In Computing The Taxable Turnover On The Ground That Freight Had Been Independently Charged In The Invoices This Was Rejected By The Assessing Authority, The Appellate Authority As Well As Tribunal Aggrieved, The Assessee Preferred Revisions To The High Court The High Court Held That In Cases Arising Under The Central Sales Tax Act, The Freight, Packing Charges And Excise Duty On Packing Materials Had To Be Included In The Sale Price For The Computation Of Sales Tax, That In Cases Arising Under The Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act And Tamil Nadu Additional Sales Tax Act, Freight, Packing Charges And Excise Duty On Packing Materials Were Not Liable To Be Included In The Sale Price For The Computation Of The Sale Price, And That The Assessees Were Not Liable To Pay Additional Sales Tax On Freight, Packing Materials And Excise Duty On Packing Materials In The Cases Arising Under The Tamil Nadu Additional Sales Tax Act Aggrieved, Both The As Well As Well As The State Government Filed Appeals Before This Court On Behalf Of The State It Was Contended That The High Court, Having Held That The Amounts In Question Were Liable To The Included In The Turnover For Purposes Of Central Sales Tax Act, Ought To Have Also Held That These Amounts Were Liable To Be Included In The Taxable Turnover For Purposes Of Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act And The Tamil Nadu Additional Sales Tax Act Also, And Relief Granted For Purposes Of The Local Sales Tax Was Erroneous On Behalf Of The Assessees, It Was Contended That, Even For The Purpose Of C S T, The Freight Charges, The Cost Of Packing Materials And The Excise Duty On The Packing Materials Should Have Been Excluded In The Computation O

20 October, 1992·PETITIONER:(MRS.) ROSHAN SAM Vs. RESPONDENT:B.R. COTTON MILLS LTD. AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT06/04/1990 BENCH:KANIA, M.H. BENCH:KANIA, M.H. KULDIP SINGH (J) SAHAI, R.M. (J) CITATION:1990 AIR 1881 1990 SCR (2) 381 1990 SCC (2) 636 JT 1990 (3) 522 1990 SCALE (1)718 ACT:Contempt of Courts Act, 1...